Reading and writing is a two way thing.

[GabbyLoggon]

Some posters seem to think we should
all write simplistically: The cat sat on the mat.

There are clearly different levels of reading. Take newspapers.

The Sun and The daily Torygraph are both Tory papers.
But they are clearly read by people with different levels of reading ability.

I think old Bill Shakespeare is above most people heads. But only a fool would say he could not write.

Dont complain about posters here until you have tried reading a book by Martin Amis

Go on, be brave , try it.

"I think old Bill Shakespeare is above most people heads."

Try not to generalise based on your own lack of understanding. It is not a good trait

You are confusing 'simplistic' with 'clarity'. There are clearly different levels of writing GabbyLoggon old chap and yours is the very opposite of being clear or simple. In fact, you usually leave clear and simple far behind and rush headlong for 'obscure and incomprehensible' like a lemming rushing for a cliff-edge.

If you want to know why people complain about your contributions read your post through carefully. Vague, meaningless, badly written and yet vainly suggesting some kind of intellectual/literal superiority at the same time. And you wonder why you get ignored?

Dont be such a silly billy Chile

Countless editors have published my writing.

I suspect it is main ly tories who complain about me here.

MUMSNET contributors are less radical that Dave Cameron (And a bloody sight ruder.)

You did not Cile even tackle the difference between a SWun Tory and a Telegraph Tory.

If I write something you dont get; go to another site...dont whinge like a ferret with
piles up its bum.

GEDDIT? Writing and reading is a two way thing.

Once again, your semi-literate ramblings make no sense whatsoever. Writing and reading certainly is a two-way thing. So why not write something that can be read and clearly understood rather than this peculiar one-man stream of consciousness you're so determined to pollute MUMSNET with? 'Countless editors' my eye...

CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD CHILE

By whom....every reader is different; so is every writer. Stop being non-philosophical and one track minded.

You write well, chile, grammar I mean. But your single-minded non humorous content bores me. SPREAD YOUR BLOODY WINGS.

Change your censorial message. Stop writin g like a lightly disguised Tory part diatribe.

Stop being a pretentious leader of the opposition.

Get on Logans Phone-in (NOW) broaden your poo-faced criticism

Have the courage to say what you are really about... I suspect political activist?

CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD CHILE

By whom....every reader is different; so is every writer. Stop being non-philosophical and one track minded.

You write well, chile, grammar I mean. But your single-minded non humorous content bores me. SPREAD YOUR BLOODY WINGS.

Change your censorial message. Stop writin g like a lightly disguised Tory part diatribe.

Stop being a pretentious leader of the opposition.

Get on Logans Phone-in (NOW) broaden your poo-faced criticism

Have the courage to say what you are really about... I suspect political activist?

Are you a troll from TES? Your posting style is v familiar.

She seems drunk.

What am I really about?.....

I come to Mumsnet for lively discussions. People post a subject in IABU as a launching off point. Fun, serious, controversial, interesting, personal, general, whatever. They will pose a question, make a statement, express an opinion and invite comment. The result is a conversation - some back and forth, a sharing of views and ideas.

Why you annoy me is that you don't want to make conversation, you want to litter the place with obscure monologues. Your silly thread about female presenters, for example. If no-one takes up your thread, you take offence. If someone (like me) responds to your thread you resort to cheap insults. And if someone complains about your threads (not me, I can't be bothered) you come back, patronisingly suggesting that we don't understand Shakespeare and helpfully pointing out that the Sun and the Telegraph are Tory newspapers. Well, no shit Sherlock...

It sounds like she's using free online translation software: "a lightly disguised Tory part diatribe" and "dont whinge like a ferret with
piles up its bum".

It's a he, incidentally...

Look chile. If you dont like biography, dont read it.

You are basically censorial in respecyt of views you do not agree with.

Newspapers? a large percentage of our pop never read one.

Incidentally the Bun has been Labour and Tory..we both got it wrong . The sun run with winners.

WINNERS bore me. Gabby Logan sees life through the eyes of winners. I think its ok for sport...but nonsense in real life

To be fair, Luxury Logans dad was a footie player. her attitudeis in her jean. Not in her 2 grand frocks.

Plenty there to discuss.

I see I hjave spelt GENES wrong.

But you lot are bright and would get the message

Have a look at my welfare reform site

Does anyone want to discuss grand frocks with me?

This is the most wonderfully ironic thread I've come across in ages. Gabby is instructing us that reading and writing is a two ways street, but doesn't seem to care at all whether her posts are in any way intelligible. Brilliant.

Also, note the typo in my post.

Beer you dont know Logan or you would know what 2 grand frocks mean

I love Martin Amis.

Gabby; the Sun and the Telegraph are NOT read by people of differing ABILITY. They are read by people with different INTERESTS. I know plenty of brainy folk who take the Sun. They like the tits, dear.

As for 'Bill Shakespeare'. Are you saying he's only for the few?

And by the way "launching off point" is a masive tautology.Tut tut.

massive, even.

I don't get it at all. Am I supposed to? Does anyone? Is she ill?

afaik her posts are always like this.